|
Winner of the Map of the Month #2!
Map of the Month #2 Finalist! + Show Spoiler [Score] + Balance: 7.5 Originality: 7.6 Fun: 6.5 Aesthetics: 7.2
For a total of 28.8.
Quoting iGrok: "Congrats! This was an easy pick."
Published on: EU, US Current version: 1.7
+ Show Spoiler [Change Log] + 1.7: - Reduced playable map size to 160x160
1.6: - Removed ally rules on 2v2 play. Because Blizzard made 2v2 play default on 4 spawn maps a few patches ago, I cannot have any specific rules on 2v2 play as if you play 1v1 in 2v2 mode you will always spawn cross. So this change removed that.
1.5: - Added "lakes" next to high-ground thirds, to narrow the two "lanes" a bit and also make the rush distance a tiny bit longer when going in the open area - Minor doodads and texturing
1.4: - Reshaped 3rds in the middle and also changed the single ramp to two ramps which are closer to the natural ramps - Textures and doodads changed to accommodate ramp changes
1.3: - Fixed problem with mineral placement on the expansions between the rocks
1.2: - Changed the ramp to the middle thirds: moved it towards the third and made it a bit more narrow - Doodads - Texturing
1.1: - Added a few doodads - Added two critters - Texture work - Added water which I had forgot to add
So, I was one of the "losers" of MotM #1 with my last map Beneath the Ice, and that made me want to try again. This time I went with reflective symmetry instead of rotational, but kept the 45 degree rotation of the map from Beneath the Ice (hard to copy and paste, but that just makes you put more thought into things before you copy )
I had a few concepts which I thought were good, and I threw together a quick map and then posted the map analyzer summary in the Map Collaboration Thread because I was unsure if it was a good layout. I got great feedback (thanks to Samro255am, iGrok and dezi for feedback!) and scrapped that variant to make a new layout which had better flow to it and also didn't have the same "blockyness" as I didn't want to make it a city/space station.
And I thought I should return to the Haven tileset which was the first I worked with, so, here you have it; a four player woodland map with marsh in the middle!
Basic Information: Name: Marshlands Author: NullCurrent Type: Melee Players: 4 Playable size: 160x160 (it is rotated 45 degrees, which makes this inaccurate because of corners) Tileset: Haven, with some Aiur mixed in Xel'Naga Watchtowers: 2 around center Bases: 12 bases with 8 minerals and 2 geysers each Trees used: 5 462
+ Show Spoiler [Map Analyzer] +
Overview
HQ Overview | HQ Top-down Overview
Features:
- Expansions allowing you to expand both towards your enemy or from him
- Backdoor to natural, which when opened results in an additional attack path, as well as expansion path
- LoS blockers to the side outside natural ramp, creating opportunities for surprise attacks or proxies
- Two Xel'naga Watchtowers which cover the middle, but not the 3rds, so scouting is still important even if you still control both watchtowers
- Only 1 creep tumour needed to connect main and natural.
Rush Distances: + Show Spoiler [Rush Distances] + Main to main: Short: 148 (close air distance, 72) Mid: 153 (air distance 116) Cross: 172
Natural to natural: Short: 93 Mid: 97 Cross: 116
Other images: + Show Spoiler [Natural with backdoor] + + Show Spoiler [Details around natural] + + Show Spoiler [Watchtower coverage] + + Show Spoiler [3rd and LoS blockers next to natural] + + Show Spoiler [Zerg creep spread] + + Show Spoiler [Example terran main] +
Comments, critique, criticism and appraisal welcome!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Seems to be very good playable regardless where your enemy starts.
|
On January 20 2011 07:59 dezi wrote: Seems to be very good playable regardless where your enemy starts. That was the point
According to the analyzer, the positional imbalance is only +-0.1% (which is due to some kind of bug which makes it think that a single cell on one part of the map is unpathable, even though it is pathable), no matter where you start compared to your enemy!
|
This is a really good map.
The rush distances aren't too long so you can rush if you want to. The choke at the natural can be walled off for a Forge fast expand, your third isn't too easy to take so the map doesn't necessarily favor a macro game. The proxy zones by the high ground thirds are going to provide some interesting games. Seriously this is an amazing map, nice job on it, even the aesthetics look great! It really gives the feel that your in a marshland (at least the overview does)!
The only thing that I'd say is it's size is large, but I'm not sure if that's just because it's tilted 45 degrees, it's a really large map, or both.
|
Good map. I like the style, the name and the layout as well. Looks like a good macro map - like Shakura's plateau for instance. I could imagine this one too be great.
|
On January 20 2011 08:12 Antares777 wrote: This is a really good map.
The rush distances aren't too long so you can rush if you want to. The choke at the natural can be walled off for a Forge fast expand, your third isn't too easy to take so the map doesn't necessarily favor a macro game. The proxy zones by the high ground thirds are going to provide some interesting games. Seriously this is an amazing map, nice job on it, even the aesthetics look great! It really gives the feel that your in a marshland (at least the overview does)!
On January 20 2011 08:13 Iamyournoob wrote: Good map. I like the style, the name and the layout as well. Looks like a good macro map - like Shakura's plateau for instance. I could imagine this one too be great.
Thanks!
On January 20 2011 08:12 Antares777 wrote: The only thing that I'd say is it's size is large, but I'm not sure if that's just because it's tilted 45 degrees, it's a really large map, or both. The thing which forces the map size to be so large are the spaces between the naturals and the center, I think.
They have to be quite big, to prevent Siege Tanks from shelling the natural expansions, currently sieging of the natural's minerals or gas is impossible unless you either move to the natural ramp, or break down the rocks (I haven't managed any proper testing of this, but the range circle cannot reach. But it can reach buildings behind the minerals, so turrets; watch out! ).
Also, the positioning of the 3rds are necessary to prevent them from being shelled from the mains, and also to avoid too short air distances between mains.
EDIT: This will soon be uploaded to the US, I've sent the mail containing the map file, so it will hopefully be a couple of hours at most before it is online
|
omg i love this map xox, you can always expand away from your oppoment, sometimes requires knocking your own rocks down but it's not that harsh.
|
The map is now published on US!
Thanks TheMonkeyMon!
|
i love the map. I love how it looks, how it feels when playing. Awesome layout.
But I gonna need a new rig to play fluent on it with my current settings. :< - Maybe you can chop some trees where noone will miss them? Anyone else got framerate issues (mainly the forrest areas force my frames to drop from 50 to 15)?
edit: nvm, just watched the replay. I'd rather pimp my pc than asking you to destroy this masterpiece of art. OMG, it's so beautyful - doesn't look like a sc2 map - looks better. :D
|
On January 20 2011 09:02 HaRuHi wrote: i love the map. I love how it looks, how it feels when playing. Awesome layout.
But I gonna need a new rig to play fluent on it with my current settings. :< - Maybe you can chop some trees where noone will miss them? Anyone else got framerate issues (mainly the forrest areas force my frames to drop from 50 to 15)?
edit: nvm, just watched the replay. I'd rather pimp my pc than asking you to destroy this masterpiece of art. OMG, it's so beautyful - doesn't look like a sc2 map - looks better. :D
I might be able to remove "some" (read: a few hundred) trees from this map, but I don't think it is the trees, and the trees I remove will be mostly "outside" the map (next to mains etc.).
What might be the cause of the lag for you can be the fog I placed around the thicket behind the natural (3 fog doodads per natural, is that too much?), but removing that will probably ruin some of the atmosphere. Which settings are you running on? (are you seeing the fog? because if not, it won't affect the performance).
I will switch graphics card (MacBook pro 17" early 2009, so it has a powerful and power-hungry card, and one weak but efficient one) and test with low graphics (the only thing I can use when running on 1920x1200 with the power saving graphics) to see if it runs smooth or not (medium on the more powerful card runs smooth without any problem) before I start removing things.
|
Feels like the map can use a few more expansion possibilities. Compared to size , theres not alot of expansions
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
On January 20 2011 18:17 ihasaKAROT wrote: Feels like the map can use a few more expansion possibilities. Compared to size , theres not alot of expansions I count the same amount as on LT.
|
I might be able to remove "some" (read: a few hundred) trees from this map, but I don't think it is the trees, and the trees I remove will be mostly "outside" the map (next to mains etc.).
What might be the cause of the lag for you can be the fog I placed around the thicket behind the natural (3 fog doodads per natural, is that too much?), but removing that will probably ruin some of the atmosphere. Which settings are you running on? (are you seeing the fog? because if not, it won't affect the performance).
I play with custom setting, everything between normal and high, but effect I had set to low. I tested it right now with high effect setting and it doesn't effect the frame rate at all. The fog does not really add much to the scene either, but since it does not effect frames, keep it. And the sunbeams at the third are there, on low and high - they are awesome. (I normaly have set effects to low because they have a bad effect on my gameplay, it is much harder to spot observers in rain^^).
Despite this, basicly everywhere where a lot of trees are, my frames drop drasticly ([ctrl]+[alt]+[f] to show ingame).
|
really diggin the look, yet at the same time worried about the one way route into the middle of the map even though there are the back rocks. seems as though contains would be very strong here. gl gl in next motm.
|
On January 20 2011 20:41 HaRuHi wrote:Show nested quote +I might be able to remove "some" (read: a few hundred) trees from this map, but I don't think it is the trees, and the trees I remove will be mostly "outside" the map (next to mains etc.).
What might be the cause of the lag for you can be the fog I placed around the thicket behind the natural (3 fog doodads per natural, is that too much?), but removing that will probably ruin some of the atmosphere. Which settings are you running on? (are you seeing the fog? because if not, it won't affect the performance). I play with custom setting, everything between normal and high, but effect I had set to low. I tested it right now with high effect setting and it doesn't effect the frame rate at all. The fog does not really add much to the scene either, but since it does not effect frames, keep it. And the sunbeams at the third are there, on low and high - they are awesome. (I normaly have set effects to low because they have a bad effect on my gameplay, it is much harder to spot observers in rain^^). Despite this, basicly everywhere where a lot of trees are, my frames drop drasticly ([ctrl]+[alt]+[f] to show ingame). Will investigate this further, don't have time until tomorrow. Hope I won't have to remove too many trees.
On January 21 2011 01:22 WniO wrote: really diggin the look, yet at the same time worried about the one way route into the middle of the map even though there are the back rocks. seems as though contains would be very strong here. gl gl in next motm. I'm thinking so too, first I thought it wouldn't be much of a problem because of the previously mentioned backdoor, and the fact that you still can sneak units by the towers. But now when you mention it, I'm starting to doubt my decision of keeping the current watchtower placement.
Any suggestion on how I should move them? (Also, if it requires modifying the middle, fine, as long as it is an improvement ) (This is a general question, so I'm not just asking you WinO )
The current idea I have is to move the watchtowers a few tiles towards the space between the naturals, and move the ramp to the 3rd towards the edge one or two steps. All this to make for more uncovered space around the 3rds so that it is easier to move out without being spotted. But I'm not sure if this is a good idea, as it might make the watchtowers almost useless mid to late game.
PS. Thanks for the good luck!
|
Really liking it, looks decently balanced!
|
First glance at it. Beautiful! I can picture running my zerglings through the forrest nomnomnomming marines between the trees!
|
really like how tis map developed. simpler layout, better game I guess
concerning the XNWT placement and the contain: do you remember my super ugly drawing with the third turned around, sothat the ramp is pointing to the NW/SE corners? than you would have a second way out, when contained infront of third and you would have a nice place for the watchtower, too, to help attacking third.
edit: just saw the image in the other thread where you actualy tried this. you would have to move the base a bit more to outside to keep general layout of centre, imo
|
I've made some more experimentation, and I think I've created a good solution to the contain problem:
+ Show Spoiler [Analyser image] + + Show Spoiler [Overview] + HQ Overview
What do you think? (this is not yet published)
My current concerns are: close positions, and sigeing of the minerals from the middle. Also, should I replace them with a gold or not? (Not sure)
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
I hate this change. I never would gonna take this new third early on. Just seems so vulnerable (that's why i also voted against this in the Map Collaboration thread). The space in front of the nat was absolutely fine - watch at LT. Nobody complains at a contain there and there even isn't a backdoor that allows you to go around.
Long story short: undo this change.
|
I have to agree with you dezi, it gets too hard to hold that expansion and 2 base play is usually not so interesting to watch. So that idea is now scrapped (even though it would have been interesting with the sight blockers).
Updated the version on the battle net:
1.1 Changes: - Added a few doodads - Added two critters - Texture work - Added water which I had forgot to add
Updated OP with new overview images.
EDIT: The changes does NOT include the changes I posted a few posts earlier, I will probably never implement them in the published map.
Have anyone tested the map (except for me) ? If so, what did you think? Anything which didn't feel right?
|
I've made some testing with the trees, and as soon as I add enough trees to make it look like a forest, I see a frame-rate drop (not so huge, when on medium I see ~30->22, otherwise 60->50) when looking at the forest
So I guess there is no choice but to live with it, because otherwise it will ruin the look of the map (most of all trees are just outside map bounds, I guess that at most 2000 of the 5000 trees are on the playable map itself).
I have no idea why other doodads does not cause these frame-rate drops (maybe just because we don't use as many as we do trees when making a forest).
Btw, didn't Neo Enigma have framerate problems? Were those resolved? If so, how?
|
I really love the design! Looks like great game-play, nice job overall. I only see two issues that are minor, and could be fixed easily (if at all)-
a) The main seems a bit small. You could increase the back of it a tiny bit, and then move minerals back appropriately. It would put more space between the ramp, but you want more space to build. Keep in mind, I just think it should be increased a tiny bit because its slightly awkward right now. b) The 3rd's ramp seems to stick out a lot. Maybe consider moving it back a tad to make it more viable in cross positions? Right now you have to keep complete map control to take it.
Btw, didn't Neo Enigma have framerate problems? Were those resolved? If so, how? edit: Neo Enigma's FPS issues were fixed by removing fire from various places.
|
Updated to: 1.2!
Changes: - Changed the ramp to the middle thirds: moved it towards the third and made it a bit more narrow - Doodads - Texturing
Updated images in OP according to changes. (Take a look at the HQ overview, it is really beautiful )
On January 24 2011 07:53 monitor wrote: I really love the design! Looks like great game-play, nice job overall. I only see two issues that are minor, and could be fixed easily (if at all)-
a) The main seems a bit small. You could increase the back of it a tiny bit, and then move minerals back appropriately. It would put more space between the ramp, but you want more space to build. Keep in mind, I just think it should be increased a tiny bit because its slightly awkward right now.
It is 32 CommandCenters big, I've added a picture of an example terran main below. If you still think it is too small, I will consider making it larger.
+ Show Spoiler [Example terran main] +
On January 24 2011 07:53 monitor wrote: b) The 3rd's ramp seems to stick out a lot. Maybe consider moving it back a tad to make it more viable in cross positions? Right now you have to keep complete map control to take it.
Moved them a bit, just one tile. But that also made the ramp narrower, which hopefully will help defending it. I cannot move the ramp farther back, as then I will have to move the minerals too, which will pose some problems because they will be too close to the mains.
+ Show Spoiler [Watchtower coverage and 3rds] +
On January 24 2011 07:53 monitor wrote:Show nested quote +Btw, didn't Neo Enigma have framerate problems? Were those resolved? If so, how? edit: Neo Enigma's FPS issues were fixed by removing fire from various places. I don't have many particle effects on my map, so that was not so much help then Must be something in how the trees are made as a model (I guess they are simple polys with alpha, which can be hard to compute when they are layered as they are in a forest).
|
you killed by idea for third again! anyway, rightly so. third would work better/saver with ramp at back end though. I am just happy you used my feedback in the collaboration thread for some good and some bad experimental changes.. it turned out quite nice.
although visuals are not very special, they look interesting enough, it's a clean design and everything works really nicely. very, very solid layout. probably one of the best mirrorsymmetry4player maps I think.
|
Is it possible for tanks to go in the area for the third and shoot over the 'forrest' into the your natural? If so it could be problematic
|
On January 24 2011 22:01 Samro225am wrote:you killed by idea for third again! anyway, rightly so. third would work better/saver with ramp at back end though. I am just happy you used my feedback in the collaboration thread for some good and some bad experimental changes.. it turned out quite nice.
Hehe, seems like that idea just won't work on this particular layout. The reasoning is that it will be too hard to take when spawning close positions, as you have two lanes to attack with and both are short and starts just outside your natural. Plus it would probably favor terran because of the LoS blockers combined with high-ground for tanks.
What I wanted was to make the 3rd behind the rocks somewhat equally safe when spawning in the 6 vs 9 locations as the 3rd on high-ground is when spawning 6 vs 3. So you always will have a nice expansion pattern, no matter where your opponent is.
On January 24 2011 22:01 Samro225am wrote: although visuals are not very special, they look interesting enough, it's a clean design and everything works really nicely. very, very solid layout. probably one of the best mirrorsymmetry4player maps I think.
Well, the thing is that the visuals of this map is to be very glum, and I cannot really just put a Xel'Naga statue there, it just wouldn't match the feeling. I try to add more and more doodads incrementally (mainly smaller details which doesn't really show up on the HQ overview as they are small), but I have to be careful so I don't ruin that feel by making the map a pile of mismatched stuff. (Also, the fog and rain contribute greatly to the look-and-feel of this map.)
As for the layout: I first started with ideas from Metalopolis (the basic 4 player mirror setup and expansion pattern, which makes for good macro games when not starting close positions), Scrap station (the path between expansions which are shortened when rocks are destroyed) and Xel'Naga Caverns (the 3rd with short path blocked by rocks).
I think I managed to take good stuff from all of those maps an create the layout, and I'm happy that you think it is so good!
EDIT:
On January 24 2011 22:59 Tiazi wrote: Is it possible for tanks to go in the area for the third and shoot over the 'forrest' into the your natural? If so it could be problematic
No, it is impossible by design. But they might be able to shell at a turret behind the mineral line, depending on where it is placed.
|
Fixed a problem with mineral placement on the 3rds between the rocks.
1.3 uploaded.
|
Very cool looking map, I would love to play it. One little balance issue though is that there seems to be a lot less flying space behind the 4 o'clock main compared to any of the others, with muta or banshee harrass that's a pretty big deal.
|
From the picture you posted, I'd say the mains are fine. I was just confused because of the large map picture, sorry!
|
I just started learning to make maps, and I came upon this, and It makes me want to be better. Keep up the good work man!
|
On January 25 2011 07:57 Tizoc wrote: Very cool looking map, I would love to play it. One little balance issue though is that there seems to be a lot less flying space behind the 4 o'clock main compared to any of the others, with muta or banshee harrass that's a pretty big deal. That is not the case, the overview is not rendered from directly above, so it will look like some expansions have more space than the others, but I've made sure so that they all have equal amounts of space for air units (the map bounding line is equidistant from the edges of the mains on all positions).
The map is published on the US server, so go ahead, try it
On January 25 2011 08:14 monitor wrote: From the picture you posted, I'd say the mains are fine. I was just confused because of the large map picture, sorry! People usually are, I've started to only look at the map analyzer summary when it comes to main size, as that is usually more accurate (no worries, the concern is justified as if it is too small it will be a pain to play on, same goes for the shape)
On January 25 2011 18:15 thurst0n wrote: I just started learning to make maps, and I came upon this, and It makes me want to be better. Keep up the good work man! Thanks! (Don't give up on your mapmaking!)
|
1.4 Released!
Changes: - Reshaped 3rds in the middle and also changed the single ramp to two ramps which are closer to the natural ramps - Textures and doodads changed to accommodate ramp changes
Images in OP updated, look at them for details.
The reasoning behind this is as Samro255am has said earlier, to make the center 3rd easier to hold. After some discussion with a friend he suggested to keep the general shape on the 3rds, but to split the ramp into two and move them towards the gas geysers. (So no ramp from the back as you wanted Samro255am, but something similar)
This makes it easier to hold when playing mid-distance positions (not close air), as the opponent has to move his army a lot to get to the ramp farthest from your natural ramp. But it also opens up another path to you, one which isn't covered by a watchtower.
What do you all think?
|
Brilliant, sexy lookin map.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Nat 2 Nat close now much more closer :/
|
blizzard needs to add this map to the pool
|
On January 28 2011 07:52 dezi wrote: Nat 2 Nat close now much more closer :/ Only by the length of a *single* Supply Depot (ie. 2 units of length on the map analyzer). So the difference is not large at all.
I think I can make it longer by extending the cliff from the 3rd into the center, or add a chasm/pool of water from that cliff into the middle. Will experiment a bit and see if it is necessary.
@dezi: Do you think the general layout is an improvement, if you ignore the shortening of the rush distance?
@NastyMarine & Snake_Doc: Thanks for the compliments!
|
I really, really love this map. Been playing a lot against the computer on it; I have a feeling this will be one of my go-to maps when playing custom 1v1s with friends!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
In general it's an improvement.
|
Published 1.5 (on EU, US will be up soon)
Change Log: - Added "lakes" next to high-ground thirds, to narrow the two "lanes" a bit in the middle and also make the rush distance a tiny bit longer when going in the open area - Minor doodads and texturing
Now I will submit this to MotM #2, let us hope it scores better than my last map!
|
Nice map, would be nice with a wider ramp at the main choke so that it cant be just blocked with a single forcefield so the protoss can calmly kill your natural.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Walling a double wide ramp on close position against zerg gonna be i nightmare. Don't forget the other races when suggesting a change.
|
Just wanted to say that I played this some with friends and I really like the setting (hade ingen aning om att granarna brinner när man nukar någons nat! ).
I think it plays very well. I had problem getting into terran's main as ground army zerg, but no problem at all with the nat. Eventually I assaulted the ramp with ultras, but just dropping with overlords had been better.
Anyways, my only concern is that the gameplay is perhaps too simple, to stand out, although the viduals stands out (and I'm no pro player or anything, just a another mapmaker, so don't listen to me)...
|
On February 04 2011 01:04 Meltage wrote:Just wanted to say that I played this some with friends and I really like the setting (hade ingen aning om att granarna brinner när man nukar någons nat! ). I think it plays very well. I had problem getting into terran's main as ground army zerg, but no problem at all with the nat. Eventually I assaulted the ramp with ultras, but just dropping with overlords had been better. Anyways, my only concern is that the gameplay is perhaps too simple, to stand out, although the viduals stands out (and I'm no pro player or anything, just a another mapmaker, so don't listen to me)...
Thanks for the praise!
About the problems getting into the terran main with a Zerg ground army, it is quite hard already if they bunker up and so on, but did you try the natural backdoor? (might not have made a difference, depends on where your opponent placed his defensive lines).
And to explain a bit about the layout, I had a more complex layout when I started with this map, but I scrapped some ideas because it just resulted in something either not aesthetically pleasing or it just became too many chokes and paths, which made it big and complex (big maps have some problems with balance, usually, will be interesting to see the new maps in GSTL as they are quite large).
If I make the map too original, then it just won't be good as players will be confused by its strange layout or some other strange ideas. So what I did was to try and make a solid layout which allowed for long macro games independent of starting positions. If this makes the map simple, then I hope it doesn't detract from the entertainment value of the map.
It does have some LoS blockers placed in some interesting positions, so I hope they have played some part in your enjoyment of this map
PS. Trees also burn when you manage to splash them with siege tanks, not only nukes, if I remember correctly.
On February 02 2011 23:42 dezi wrote: Walling a double wide ramp on close position against zerg gonna be i nightmare. Don't forget the other races when suggesting a change.
My sentiments exactly!
|
Yeah I got into the nat (he didnt wall in exactly by the ramp but farther back, by the vespene, so I had full vision. Still I think that wide nat ramp makes the map balanced enough).
It was the actual main I was talking about. But yeah, I supose the main ramp has to be small. I tried to get some nydus up within his main but had problem protecting those as he spotted them with no problem at all. Perhaps extending the main platform some into the area between the adjacent mains? That way, the air-only area could be invaded by anti-air ground AND it coudl be used for drops/nyduses.
Update: I didn't give those LoS much thought or use, except for those around the watchtower. I liked the watchtover platforms. In another game, playing prot, I couldn't place a pylon by the watchtower, which I supose i fair, but I coudl place right at the bottom of the ramp, blocking bigger units to reach the watch tower. That's a feature rather than a flaw, I think.
|
For some reason the map forced cross positional spawning when tested in MotM, which wasn't intended at all. I investigated this problem, and now I think I have a solution:
Make 1v1 mode default.
I made the 2v2 mode have restrictions on ally placements, because I figured someone would probably want to play it in a 2v2. Apparently 2v2 has been made the default mode for 4 spawn maps a few patches ago.
And they removed the feature to set the 1v1 mode as default play mode. So I've now removed all specific team rules, which means you can spawn sandwiched between to enemies in 2v2 play, but so be it. I don't want only-cross spawning on this map, it wasn't intended at all.
PS. Also updated the Analyzer image with an image containing LoS blockers.
EDIT: PPS: Added MotM #2 score to the OP!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Gratz man, but it was clear that this map has to be in the top 5
|
|
On February 10 2011 05:35 Antares777 wrote: Congrats on MotM #2!
On February 10 2011 04:06 dezi wrote:Gratz man, but it was clear that this map has to be in the top 5
Thanks!
It took some time before I came up with the layout of the map, and a few tries too before it became something decent.
So I think MotM #2 confirms this: I'm finally happy with my map!
PS. I will probably not participate in MotM #3 with a map, as I have exams. If I come up with a good 3 player layout, then I'll go for number 4!
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
Makes my judge work easier in march ^^
|
@@NullCurrent I must ask - do you have some good technique for creating 2v2 symetric map with a 45 degree angle, like this map? A little ooc, I know, but I see few of those maps and would like to learn how to do it.
|
To start with just my general preparation when it comes to mapmaking:
First I try to get a general idea when it comes to the map. Marshlands had a bit of planning and a single attempt at drawing the map on paper, which didn't result in a good layout, as I drew it as a chasm through the middle of the map with entrances to it and the side entrances blocked by rocks (not too dissimilar, but it is still a long way from the final Marshlands).
Beneath the Ice (which also has 45 degree rotation, but with rotational symmetry) was not something I had many ideas for, I just started drawing cliffs in the editor and came up with something acceptable.
When I start with a map I don't really care about the tileset, and I usually draw one of the mains with cliffs. I always start with the mains and naturals — for some reason I think it is easier to get a scale.
Also, I never start texturing until I'm done with the cliffs, as if I have to resize the map, the textures will be offset a bit and mess everything up. I do however use the texture fill tool to colour the layers so it is easier to see which part of the map is on which cliff level. I may also start to mess with the contents of the tileset, like contained textures and cliffs and lighting while I draw the main. This is an ongoing process until I think I've got the textures I want.
So, onto How I create the 45 degree symmetry:
After I have made one "corner" (not the real corner of the map, a corner of the imagined 45 degree rotated rectangle of the map) of the map and if I'm happy with them (here is usually where you should think about starting to change stuff, because it will be more of a pain later on if you change your mind) I will start copy and paste.
So I select the main, including everything which should be copied. In this step it is very common to select corners (see the image below), but don't worry, you will fix them later on. Then I paste, and now you have the rectangle for placing the stuff.
If this was a common map without pi/4 rotation, you'd just do flip vertical or flip horizontal in the edit menu. But because of the pi/4 rotation we have to add a rotation to the whole thing.
For copying bottom to left: flip vertical -> 90 CCW bottom to right: flip vertical -> 90 CW the rest goes through a similar scheme
Then you paste it into your map and if it does not look good, revert and try and try again until you have the parts lined up perfectly (for me it takes maybe, 10-15 tries or something). I'd recommend using the grid tool and also the building placement grid (grid for pasting, and build grid to count distances and see so they line up).
After you have made the first copy and paste, you now have to fix the overlapping area. I recommend pasting the original cliff over the area you copied it from, to make that part whole, and then focus on repairing the "damage" on the pasted variant.
+ Show Spoiler [Fist copy and paste] +Managed to find this image in my map analyzer directory In this case I didn't have to do much copy and paste, later on, when I made modifications to the main I did have to copy so they overlapped
Now you have to fill the area in between the copied parts of the map. This is something I do freehand with the help of the grid and building grid. Sometimes I realize that the distance is not correct (so cliffs doesn't mesh right), then I have to redo the copying, flip and rotation.
Here I usually run the map analyzer, I run it quite often to check positional balance.
+ Show Spoiler [Lower left part of marshlands alpha] +
So now we have made the lower left part of the map (if we're looking at marshlands). Now we have to copy and paste for a second time: Select the area containing both mains and do a 180 degrees rotation on the copied terrain (this works because of the reflection symmetry). Paste it and use the grid as a guide, you want to paste one of the corners along the diagonal running through the area you copied. (I usually also select with one corner in an intersection of the grid and the diagonal in this case, as it will be a lot easier to paste.).
Note: You might have to resize the map area many times, don't worry, you will shrink it when you're done.
Make a few attempts and see if you think it looks good, try with making a small gap and a large gap. This to see how it will affect your map and if you need more space.
Now you start filling in the stuff in between, here you can do one side and then copy and paste with 180 rotation.
+ Show Spoiler [Marshlands Alpha] +
Finally you have to go through everything and see that it is symmetrical, use the map analyzer (and you always need to add/have starting positions to make it parse the map properly).
So now we're done with the layout, here is where I start texturing the stuff and play with different doodads, tilesets etc.
That is what I can say about 45 degree rotation layouts in general. Someone else might have more insight into it as this was only my second map with 45 degree rotation.
|
Updated to 1.7 on EU, NA to follow soon.
Changes: - Reduced playable map size to 160x160
The reasons for this change is that people felt that the minerals of the mains were hard to protect, even with turrets. So by reducing the playable area I remove some maneuvering room behind the mains, forcing drops to come from an angle instead of from right behind the mineral line.
PS. Sorry for the wall of text above
|
@@NullCurrent Thanks a lot for the 45 degree turning-guide. I'll make use of it. I supose it's generally what I shoudl have done too, but I donät liek copypasting 15 times before I get it right, and then much later realize that it wasnt right even then
You shoudl post this in a new thread as a tutorial.. perhaps on sc2mapster.com ? THey have a forum for tutorials, but not a lot about terraining. Actually I'd like to see it discussed here on TL as well, to see if there are other methodes.Perhaps I should make an op myself, if I'm allowed to quote your entire guide?
|
Possible changes thanks to feedback from MotM:
Narrowing of the natural ramp:
As a test I tried to see what was required to make it easier to wall of in a fast expand way, or as a turtling terran (with eg. 3 barracks). All I needed to add were a few doodads which cover up a bit of the top of the ramp, making it small enough to wall with 3 3x3 buildings.
The large ramp still allows the attacker to move up within sight range with a lot of units, but it is easier to prevent them from further moving into the natural.
Example of a Forge-Fast-Expand wall, notice the trees to the right:
What do you think of this change? Is it something I should implement?
Changes to the backdoor rocks
Not sure what I should do here, first thing that occurred to me was to narrow the ramp itself, but that was quickly discarded as it would be almost impossible to move your army to protect your third (if you take the one between the rocks). Then I thought about narrowing the highground just after the rocks, but I realized it was still narrow, making it somewhat easy to block with force-fields, spine-crawlers or bunkers.
So on this point I'm not sure what to do, the reason for this change would be to make the natural easier to defend, but I'm not sure it is really needed, or possible without ruining the possibility to expand to the 3rd between the rocks.
Map Size
I will probably not change the map size or rework the map into a smaller one. The rush distances are okay I think, like Metalopolis on mid-length positions if you exclude cross positions. Cross positions are a bit shorter than Scrap Station, but the natural-natural distance is a lot shorter.
Playable map size has already been lowered to 160x160 because of previously mentioned air harass, I might decrease this further if it is necessary, but I don't think so currently.
If you have any more suggestions, please post them here!
PS. Thank you for voting in the MotM thread, I appreciate it! (and keep voting, preferably for Marshlands )
PPS. Updated the OP with a link to a HIgh-Res Top-down view of the map, might be useful for some people.
|
I don't think 3 building walloff needs to be standard for the natural on all maps ever. The fact that the "good" ladder maps mostly have open naturals indicates that this is in fact a luxury. Marshlands is perfect for an open natural because the distances are medium-far. The back door is only really dangerous in tower-share positions, and even then they would have to take down their own rocks to make it a quick route. Moreover, we're talking about the natural, which shouldn't be a "free" base unless the map was designed that way. I think the openness isn't really that much, and it's a good fit for the map in general. Please don't change anything unless you want to. :D
[edit] Here's a picture of an example walloff. You would actually have more options if there was better pylon space behind the 1st geyser / mineral patches.
|
On February 26 2011 00:53 EatThePath wrote: I don't think 3 building walloff needs to be standard for the natural on all maps ever. The fact that the "good" ladder maps mostly have open naturals indicates that this is in fact a luxury. Marshlands is perfect for an open natural because the distances are medium-far. The back door is only really dangerous in tower-share positions, and even then they would have to take down their own rocks to make it a quick route. Moreover, we're talking about the natural, which shouldn't be a "free" base unless the map was designed that way. I think the openness isn't really that much, and it's a good fit for the map in general. Please don't change anything unless you want to. :D
[edit] Here's a picture of an example walloff. You would actually have more options if there was better pylon space behind the 1st geyser / mineral patches.
You make a good case. What changes would you want to make to allow a better pylon placement?
|
You see where I put the pylon? You can't put it any nearer the geyser because of the diagonal cliff. Two quick changes to fix this:
Rearrange the 4-squares-away mineral patch + Show Spoiler +
Indent the corner of the cliff + Show Spoiler +
These are my personal gripes about the walling options, but I don't think they're objectively most important, and I'm not sure what is. However, I do feel strongly that walling options at the natural are one of the things that gives a map its character, and the mini-puzzle of figuring out how to wall is an important part of how play develops on a map. (This is really fun to watch as pros figure out the new maps in BW.) So I really think it's okay as is.
|
It was a long time since I last worked on this map, and after a seeing a few casted games on it through MotM, I have realized that the natural 2 natural distance is too short. It was acceptable for the metagame which took place around Christmas but later on when 2rax became really popular, it became more or less broken.
After some thought, I got an idea; why not include an in-base natural?
Here are some WIP images:
Overview
The in-base natural is on middle-ground and has a double-wide ramp to it. The number of minerals are 6 and 1 high-yield gas, like on Crevasse.
Do you think this is a step in the right direction?
|
those rocks into the thirds are still going to be satan for tank pushes but the inbase is a good addition
|
Really beautiful map, tbh I liked the version without the inbase expansion better (makes it a harder map for early/midgame zerg) but the ultimate decision is up to the mapmaker after all Will def. play on it nonetheless
|
On August 24 2011 16:14 Tuthur wrote:Really beautiful map, tbh I liked the version without the inbase expansion better (makes it a harder map for early/midgame zerg) but the ultimate decision is up to the mapmaker after all Will def. play on it nonetheless
Thanks for the praise.
But the thing with Zerg is that it becomes too hard when combined with a short rush distance between naturals. Bunker rushes are a bit too powerful here, which is why I wanted to try the in-base natural. The other reason is that I do not want to change the center of the map, and I have tried stretching the map to get a larger rush distance, but that just made it look horribly ugly in its proportions.
I will try to get some playtest games on it this weekend in our weekly TPW KOTH (just for fun, in channel TPW on EU, usually afternoon on sundays).
|
Ahh, the colours of this map are so peaceful. Aesthetically, this is one of my all-time favourites.
I think what you've done is a step in the right direction. I agree that the back route is a little strong, but that seems very difficult to solve without drastically altering the shape of the region.
|
|
|
|